NOTE: There are three essays presented here. Please click on the link for the essay you would like to read:
ESSAY ONE: A philosophical essay about religion and bringing about peace on earth...ESSAY TWO: A philosophical essay about the originions of thought and the universe...ESSAY THREE: Buddhism versus my beliefs...
ESSAY FOUR: WHY? (On the nature of Man and the current universe)...
ESSAY ONE: A philosophical essay about religion and bringing about peace on earth...
Blasphemers!
Religionists and Moral Guardians
—With Some Fresh Ideas about Achieving World Peace—
by James Aaron Parmelee
The beginning of belief. In the early morning, we see the orange sun rising and watch the women in their “morning things” slowly stirring about preparing to wake their families for the new day. We smell the aroma of cooking somewhere (and maybe some coffee brewing). We hear the birds: some singing or chirping, others squawking. We see the multi-hued clouds hovering. We feel the tingling breeze and watch the leaves and the tree limbs gently waving, or violently waving, depending on the strength of the wind. Our hair is tossed.
In the afternoon on a stretch of sand, we feel and smell the incoming waves, watch and listen to the laughing swimmers and admire a pretty bikini-clad girl sunbathing, her mate massaging sunscreen onto her soft body parts. Ours eyes then focus on adjacent rock formations, ‘eager’, we fantasize, for a human footstep to stand on and climb up them.
In the evening, the multi-lit city and the shy moon (if there is one tonight) together cast a pale gleam onto the sand in front of the sea, which is now roaring, and our eyes draw upward and see the natural ‘lamps’ of any clear evening, and identify two or three galaxies above us from among infinite other stars and planets seemingly drifting onward and outward forever.
—And, in all of this, with a logic we imagine as valid as a mathematical formula, we see, we feel, indeed we know, that all of these things are centralized by God, and are a part of God (capillaries of His being, as it were); and that this Embodiment, or Brain, which unites all things as One is a God of love. Indeed, almost none of the great philosophers and scientists of human history have looked on these things and said, “There is no God”.
At the same time, in experiencing all of these natural phenomena, we understand at once that they and we are all mortal, or transient, and that one day all must ‘pass away’. The leaves and limbs of these trees, and the trees themselves, will one day die and fall awkwardly. These birds not long hence will lie on their backs with their fragile stick-legs turned skyward, never again to stir, sing or fly (perhaps to be eaten by cats). The bodies of the morning women will be entered into graves or crematoriums, and joined by their husbands and their children and their grandchildren. The suns of the sky will one day burn out and the planets will darken. The pretty girl in the bikini will turn gray, her skin sag, and her musical voice deepen while her belly and bottom bulge forth boldly before the sad dying. In no circumstance, however, do we gain any sense that God is either vindictive or vengeful, or that He would kill or torture any living thing, much less babies and children and innocent women and men, as He has been accused of. He only allows our dying.
With this awareness of mortality and the transient nature of all things, there rushes up in our beings a conviction, nonetheless, that there is never truly an end to anything that possesses awareness; indeed, perhaps, not an end to anything physical. And we seek assurance, or reassurance, and knowledge from those better informed, more exploratory than we are, or perhaps more intelligent than we are, that what we feel (and therein ‘know) about God and the immortality of the natural universe is really true; and we seek an explanation for everything that is. The poet, Walt Whitman, in his Leaves of Grass expresses these feelings eloquently for all of us:
“Was somebody asking to see the Soul?
See! Your own shape and countenance—
Persons, substances, beasts, the trees, the running rivers, the rocks and sands.
All hold spiritual joys, and afterwards loosen them:
How can the real body ever die, and be buried?
Of your real body, and any man's or woman’s real body,
Item for item, it will elude the hands of the corpse-cleaners, and pass to fitting spheres,
Carrying what has accrued to it from the moment of birth to the moment of death.”
Enter religion. From the beginning of human existence, it seems, there has always been someone who fancied himself (it was never a woman!) to possess a unique knowledge and experience of God, and who (conveniently) recognized that if only he could persuade everyone else to believe as he did, he could control them and assume full power over them and their lives and the lives of their families. These persons, and the leaders who ‘followed’ from them (who definitionally have set about curbing or curtailing human freedoms and safety), we will call “Religionists”. Religionists may be apostles either of a specific religion, or of a specific political ideology. Either way, they invoke the name of God in the pursuit of their own ends. Certainly, in order to both get and maintain control over the minds of their believers, the religionists have established teachings, creeds and commandments on the pretext of helping their subjects to live virtuous lives and be sensitive to the needs of others. Some of these teachings are good, and some are wise (nearly all are violated by their own creators, however, and often blatantly so). We must make no mistake about it, in any case: Religions, and most particularly religions of Middle Eastern origin, are all about control. They are not about helping others! In fact, they are mostly about violence or the report or threat of violence.
Following on The Religionists are the collective groups of persons we will call “The Moral Guardians”. These ‘agenda carriers’ break down into five classes—the four dangerous, or potentially dangerous, among them being: preachers, evangelists and crusaders; the ‘Sheep’; politicians and government leaders; and news media. Finally, there is one good class which now begs to be legitimized in order to protect human freedoms. We will discuss the Moral Guardians in a moment, but let us first examine the myths that compose religions, and the evil and violence which are inherent in those of Middle Eastern origin particularly.
The debunking of Middle Eastern religions. Any educated person alive at this moment knows that God did not create the heavens and the earth in six days and rest on the seventh. Adam and Eve (if they existed at all) were not the first man and woman. No one has ever lived up to 900 years. The earth was never wholly flooded at any time. And God, we daresay, never commanded Abraham (knifepoint duly raised over his son, Isaac’s, body) to traumatize a child for life by ordering him slain by his own father as a ‘test’ of faith. However, as ‘compensation’ for Christian and Jewish believers, there came to be the Ten Commandments. Don’t these compose a beautiful and fair prescription for how one should live one’s life virtuously? Unfortunately, no! First, they were ‘intended’ only for the Hebrews of long ago. Second, their value is diminished, in large measure, by the crimes which they do not prohibit, as we will reveal below. (If the reader has been conditioned that these Commandments are sacred and holy prescriptions for how one is to live a good and Godly life, or indeed suspects that our speaking in this way about them is itself a blasphemy—Please note: all information touching on historical facts and accurate, or previously inaccurate, translations regarding the Ten Commandments that follows comes directly from professional theologians, and can be viewed in its entirely at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm , or, if you’re reading this in hard copy, just go to the home page: http://www.religioustolerance.org, and key into the site search engine the words “The Ten Commandments”.)
NOT GENERICALLY PROHIBITED by The Ten Commandments:
1. Killing or murdering anyone outside one’s own group. (Abortion is not discussed.)
2. Killing or torturing either people or animals.
3. Lying.
4. Swearing.
5. Sex by a man with a woman either before marriage or with a single woman after marriage. (Homosexual relationships are not discussed.)
6. Any type of sexual relationship by women (except that, if the women are married or engaged to be married, men having relations with them are to be punished. The idea of women doing something sexually ‘wrong’ was unthinkable when this Commandment came into being. In practice, though, ‘offending’ women were generally stoned to death.)
7. Stealing.
8. Slavery.
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by The Ten Commandments:
1. Worshiping any God except Jehovah—First Commandment (though we are sure that there is only one God and He does have other ‘names’!)
2. Making or worshipping idols—Second Commandment, reading: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Note the threat of violence and murder towards innocent generations to come.)
3. Falsely swearing in God’s name about the truth of one’s statements or intentions, or for any malicious purpose or in magic—Third Commandment (a good one, but one which does not prohibit swearing in the sense of ‘cursing’).
4. Working on the Sabbath—Fourth Commandment (referring actually to the seventh day of the week, which in those days was Saturday. This instruction is, of course, impractical, and is violated by nearly everyone, ‘believers’ and non-believers alike).
5. Dishonoring one’s father and mother—Fourth Commandment (a good one, which can be expanded to include providing for the needs of all elderly persons unable to care for themselves).
6. Kidnapping a person to sell him or her into slavery—Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal”, which referred to this type of ‘stealing’ only. (Note that slavery was acceptable, but providing a new slave was not, and that no other type of stealing is prohibited.).
How relevant, then, are these Commandments to real living? (Note that these do not differ very much from any one Middle Eastern religion to another except that Islam has nearly four times as many—owing partly to each Commandment’s being more specific, and partly to there being additional ‘rules’ to follow.) And how useful indeed are these Commandments in helping mankind to be ‘Godly’? The truth is that, combined with other ‘Old Testament’ Biblical passages (Christian, Jewish or Islamic), the Commandments converge to validate murder, torture, brutal female circumcision (Islam) and all manner of evil actions against persons regarded as ‘enemies’. If, prior to now, you have asked of yourself the following question:
“Why doesn’t the U.S. President or the British Prime Minister just say to the
terrorists who ‘martyr’ themselves (in their own eyes) by killing innocent persons:
‘Far from being martyrs and reaching Heaven in this way,
you are destined by your own scriptures to burn in hell for these heinous crimes’?
The answer is because it simply is not scripturally true! What is true is that the Christian Church, for one, has committed genocide many times in its history, exterminating such groups as the Cathars and Knights Templar. Starting in the late 15th century and continuing for 300 years, both Protestants and Roman Catholics rounded up heretics and suspected Satan worshipers, and the church executed many tens of thousands of these—often by burning them alive. The Crusades against the Muslims provide yet another example of the misapplication of religious doctrine. In recent times, not to mention the ongoing intra-Faith Christian conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Serbian Orthodox Christians organized a major religiously motivated genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, largely against Muslims. This violence, and the blasphemous depiction of God as a murderer, begins with Hebrew Biblical scriptures. Joshua and his army, for example, violated the “Thou shalt not kill” Commandment (if it were to be taken literally) on numerous occasions as he and his troops marched through Canaan, apparently with God's approval. They were often ordered by God to commit genocide by killing every Pagan man, woman, youth, child and newborn that lived in various cities of Canaan. Numerous other scriptural passages also depict this violence as attributable to God Himself, such as the following:
Exodus 12:29-30:
“And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.”
Joshua 10:40:
“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”
Deuteronomy 2:33-35:
“And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.”
Can there be any wonder about the reason terrorists at the time of this writing have begun to traumatize the entire world?—all, we must say, through the hard-line religious philosophy of “Believe as we do, or we will kill you!” Returning to Leaves of Grass, we share Walt Whitman’s sorrow at such violence, just as earlier we shared his awe over man’s natural universe:
“WORD over all, beautiful as the sky!
Beautiful that war, and all its deeds of carnage, must in time be utterly lost;
That the hands of the sisters Death and Night,
incessantly softly wash again, and ever again, this soil'd world:
For my enemy is dead—a man divine as myself is dead;
I look where he lies, white-faced and still, in the coffin—I draw near;
I bend down, and touch lightly with my lips the white face in the coffin.”
Enter the Moral Guardians. In our depiction of the blasphemous behavior of Religionists in carrying out their own agendas, whether religious, ideological or (generally) both, those espousing the Middle Eastern religions have been singled out, justly we feel, as being the biggest culprits. Why this is, why the gentle, intelligent and creative peoples of the Middle East have become so afflicted in their unction to pay proper homage and reverence to God, and to lead good and righteous lives, this writer is not well able to speculate except that they (even more than peoples from other parts of the world) have been both afflicted and brainwashed by the Moral Guardians. As mentioned earlier, these Guardians (except for one worthy group) break down into four dangerous, or potentially dangerous, classes: the Sheep; the Preachers, evangelists and crusaders; the Politicians and government leaders; and News media: the controllers of public opinion. We will consider each of these now.
The Sheep. The category of 'Sheep' includes both those who are strict religious believers in whatever they have been taught and merely wish to do well and have others do well; and those who wish to condemn the behavior of others as a means of keeping the censorship ‘spotlight’off themselves. Thus a matronly old woman observes a young unmarried man and a young unmarried woman kissing in public, and clucks her tongue (nothing in the Christian or Jewish Bible to strictly forbid such an act, of course, except that it is perceived as irreverence towards God). She, the Sheep, was herself married, perhaps, because she ‘had to be’. Likewise, a middle-aged man rants about a politician caught having sex with some woman other than his wife, hopeful that what he did with his neighbor’s daughter in her barn won’t be found out. The Sheep group, in fact, will condemn just about anything that looks like ‘fun’ (whether it harms anyone but themselves or not), but concentrates on sexual matters, probably because it’s more exciting, we suppose. In the case of Sheep, one must always be careful not to walk unclothed, freely as a dog, out of the shower room into the garden to enjoy the sensations of a fresh breeze and warm sunrays on bare skin—because God made a gross mistake when He created man!The human body is obscene and must never be displayed! Of course, it is generally allowable that depictions of violence, torture and killing may be shown in movie films (Why not? “God” did such things, didn’t He?), but there most assuredly must be no nakedness or sex in films because this is sinful! Such is the impact of Religionists and other Moral Guardians on the thinking, attitude and behavior of ‘Sheep’, as ‘Sheep’ do not even try to think for themselves or to investigate things and find out what is really true and what is not. They know what is right and what is wrong because “God” (some Religionist or other) said so.
Preachers, evangelists and crusaders. These inflame the passions—often very violent passions—of both persons already believing in the creed being extolled and those whose other creeds make them their sworn enemies. Even gentle missionaries often achieve an effect exactly opposite of the one intended. They generally are respected for their sincerity, but condemned for their rigid ‘ignorance’. Preachers interpret scriptures in ways that make their congregations feel good (and Godly) while inhibiting independent thought, and editorializing on various behaviors of the ‘unsaved’. (In the case of Muslims, this pinpoints the “Great Satan(s)” of the Western world.) These Moral Guardians make the ‘Sheep’ possible, and enfranchise them as censors.
Politicians and Government Leaders. To attain, and keep, power, politicians and government leaders often use religion and “the will of Almighty God” as pretexts to get what they want, whether they themselves are religious or not. If hindered on the way to their goals by people of other Faiths, they inflame the passions of their peoples against the hindering groups, therein setting loose in righteous frenzy all of the ‘sheep’, preachers, evangelists and crusaders discussed above.
News media: The controllers of public opinion. No news reporting, whether it be current events-focused or scriptural, is unbiased, however much reporters may wish it to be. Thus, though the persons composing this group are, as a whole, innocent of deliberately exacerbating or provoking the anger of their listeners or viewers when adverse events unfold against their group, their jobs depend on making it clear enough ‘whose side’ they are actually on. Recognizing this, some editorial shows are added which attempt not to show bias. Unfortunately, none dare to impart the ‘guidance’ needed to enable the audience to put all matters into perspective, with the end result that local public opinion becomes hardened and galvanized against “the others”. Thus, though the news media do not deliberately inflame passions (generally), they make it easy for the other Moral Guardians to do so.
Fifth, and finally, are The Proprietists, the ‘good guys’ among the Moral Guardians. These are those who, without any religious agenda whatsoever, prescribe what is ‘nice’ and ‘thoughtful’ to do and what is not, as well as what to do when other persons are not so ‘nice’ or ‘thoughtful’ to us. We will discuss this worthy group further in a moment.
We sense somehow, in any case, that a prescription for good (and proper) behavior is needed. We may curse, for example, but should not do so when it will be perceived by others as rude and offensive. We must keep our word and pay our just debts. We must not abuse others, or appear naked before others when, like cursing, this will be seen as rude and offensive. In short, we must be considerate of others at all times, while also taking care of ourselves..
.
The Golden Rule: If one single rule were ever to be adopted to guide, and indeed mandate, human behavior, if would be, in the view of this writer, The Golden Rule:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
What a magnificent rule, and consider its Source—Jesus, of the religiously violent Middle East! Scorned, indeed, was Jesus for advocating such heresy, including the concepts of forgiving one’s enemies, loving one’s neighbor as oneself; and (in reference to little children)… “As ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me.”
This writer’s religious beliefs. I would like at this time, with the indulgence of the reader, to outline my own religious beliefs: not as a prescription for what you or others should believe, but as a 'shading' for some ideas that I believe might be effective in eradicating religious and other bigotries from this world, and in helping to establish peace among the world’s nations and peoples.
First, I perceive God as being a giant ‘Brain’ to which everything either material, radiational or animate is intricately connected. I do not perceive God as being either all-knowing or all-powerful. I believe the sum of what God knows is the sum of what is knowable through all His connections with the physical universe, in addition, of course, to the computer-like analyses and discoveries emanating from that—a knowledge which humankind, in large measure, has not yet attained to. God also cannot be all-powerful because his creatures possess free will (to the extent that Moral Guardians will enable this). I do believe that God answers our prayers, but only sensible ones that, in their realization, will not, like cutting off one’s own finger, cause harm to other members of the God entity. I believe it is, or was, difficult, however, for God to answer all such prayers, simply because there are so many of them! Finally, I believe that God, before Jesus was born on earth, was incapable of sensation, or of experiencing our pain, pleasure or emotions.
I believe that God sired a Son, Jesus, with the mortal woman, Mary, and that after the death of this Son (when Jesus returned half-man to reunite with the Full-God, His Father), began for the first time to share in the feelings and emotions of humankind. At the same time, with Jesus’ death was created for us a direct ‘conduit’ unto God (along with His angels), so that God could respond to prayers through Jesus, and therein feel and know the need for the prayers, without having to intellectually ‘consider’ each one. I believe that Jesus truly is the Son of God, and that Jesus was half-God and half-man. I believe this, not because of what I read in the fallible writings of scriptural reporters, but because of Jesus’ own behavior, which was so uncharacteristic of Middle Eastern inhabitants in all their history until His birth. “God is Love!” He proclaimed—a sentiment previously unheard of in the annals of organized religions! I also believe that Jesus is the Son of God because he was born knowledgeable of the ancient scriptures and prophesies, a knowledge which he demonstrated by ‘teaching the teachers’ while still a child and just a carpenter’s apprentice. Jesus was, of course, as ‘half-man’, subject to some degree to being affected by the violent teachings of the past; yet, as ‘half-God’, He transcended all of these and brought forth an unprecedented message of peace to nations of people ‘starved’ for this new Word.
In summary, this writer’s ‘religion’ (which incidentally does include a type of afterlife ‘Heaven)’ is all about Empathy, Peace, Freedom and Fairness for all living creatures, and I would like to propose some ideas on how we might attain these. Before doing so, we must recognize that dealing with religions, religionists, moral guardians and the many conflicts among them is no easy task, and we might consider the words of Hans Küng, the noted German theologian:
“There will be no peace among nations without peace among religions. There will be no peace among religions without dialogue between religions, and no dialogue between religions without investigation of the foundation of religions. There will be peace on earth only when there is peace among world religions. There will be no world peace without peace among religions, and there will be no peace among religions without dialogue between religions.”
We can only hope most sincerely, however, that Herr Küng is at least partially mistaken, as we don’t believe that any such ‘event’ can ever take place per se! This writer does believe, nonetheless, that the following ideas are possible, and may achieve the same, or an even better, end:
Some Fresh Ideas about Achieving World Peace
Phase One
First: The nations of the world which are, or seek to become, U.N. members must meet in a special session of the United Nations called The Establishment of a Just World Peace and agree on rules of proper conduct between and among all peoples and all nations. Each nation must come in with its own set of ‘rules’ to propose, and the meeting must stay in session (not including rest breaks, sleep and meals) until an agreement has been reached, however long this may take. Should no 100% agreement be reached, additional voting will be held until an agreement has reached a 75% consensus, and this result must be accepted and followed by all nations. After that, the ‘Conduct Rules ’ will be empowered, and the U.N. will be authorized to act in accordance with them. All nations will be admitted to this session. Nations abstaining will be banned from U.N. membership until they have officially endorsed the passed Rules resolution.
Second: All nations must then select, appoint or elect an appropriate theological representative for each religion or religious faction in their country to appear at a special session of the U.N. Security Council, at a definite time and date set by the U.N, in order to obtain the written consent and sworn compliance of these theological representatives with the passed Rules, in the following context: All theologians (meaning preachers, pastors, priests, monks, evangelists, missionaries, etc.) may continue to preach, teach and lecture on old scriptures as usual; but, in each session, must emphasize and reiterate the U.N. passed Conduct Rules, requiring that these be followed by their respective laities, or congregations. (Actually, the theologians should be able to piece together snippets from their own Scriptures to demonstrate that these Rules are actually consistent with their established doctrines.) Theologians shown to be in violation of this requirement will be pronounced ‘laity’ by the U.N., and the nations in which such offenses take place will be required to appoint replacements who, likewise, will be required to sign an acceptance of the Conduct Rules at the United Nations. Countries which allow noncompliant theologians to continue in practice will be issued warnings, and then permanently banned from the United Nations if they fail to adhere to this requirement fully.
Phase Two
The United Nations must establish the following rules of procedure in the education of each nation’s children; for qualifying candidates vying for national office; for the conduct of scientists; for the conduct of the nations themselves; for the passing and enforcement of national laws; and for responsible and objective reporting by the news media:
Education of children. Here is a role for ‘The Proprietists’ (the ‘good’ Moral Guardians), and that role must be much expanded. Currently, The Proprietists are the propagators of ‘etiquette’, such as Emily Post or ‘Miss Manners’, and despite their being limited, essentially, to social nuances, such persons as these have probably done more good for people in terms of how people should treat one another than all of the world’s religious preachings put together (if their followers really heed them)!
All children must be taught Empathy by a trained ‘Proprietist’ (though we do hope a more fortunate descriptive will be found for him or her!), and this should continue from age six throughout the first 12 years of schooling.
Stories must be written for children of all levels illustrating the Conduct Rules in application, and, from these, assignments must be given impacting the children’s grades. One question per week relating to the Conduct Rules should also be given to the children, with the answer also counting towards their grades.
Qualifications for holding national office: All candidates for national office must pass a test in the native language of the office seeker showing knowledge of the principles of governance; national and world geography; and the current world situation, along with any history that impacts upon it. The test must also affirm their compassion and love for all persons and all living things, as well as their readiness to adhere to the Conduct, and other, Rules of the U.N. All U.N. officials must have taken and passed the same test, as well as an additional test showing a comprehensive knowledge of the duties pertaining to their positions.
Qualifications for scientists: Scientists must have training in the potential social repercussions of their endeavors, and obtain U.N. endorsement before being allowed to publish or present a discovery or invention which could potentially threaten or destroy humankind.
Qualifications for nations: All nations must be forbidden to wage war unless attacked. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) of every nation must be destroyed and never produced again. Verification of this must be certifiable, and failed verifications, or failure fully to cooperate in inspections therefor, must subject offending nations to a complete and permanent trade cutoff with any other nation. Nations must also subscribe to, and abide by, laws guaranteeing the legality of any action performed by individuals or groups which does not infringe on the rights of any other person or group. The human body will be judged not to be ‘obscene’. No act by individuals or groups which is not harmful to others, or is harmful only to themselves will be prohibited or punished, except that they may be ‘censored’ in the community by The Proprietists and the then somewhat more useful ‘Sheep’.
National laws: No laws infringing on human rights, as defined in the U.N. Conduct Rules, will be passed or enforced. Persons infringing on the rights of others, or harming, or potentially harming, or killing others must be imprisoned for periods of time proportionate to the seriousness of the crime committed—as authorized by U.N. endorsement following one-time committee examination of the proposed punishments for specific offenses. No paroles must be granted under any circumstances. Willful murderers must be imprisoned for life. Prisoners, including ‘lifers’, must undergo training to make them socially useful while incarcerated. All governments must provide for the welfare of their citizens, including medical care. Persons convicted of crimes may have their cases heard by higher courts if their guilt seems likely but less than certain.
The news media: News media persons must ensure that reporting is done under the objectivity requirements of the U.N. Conduct Rules.
The Conduct Rules to be proposed. All of us could formulate Conduct Rules, or ‘Commandments’, if you will, that would deserve the consideration of an impartial United Nations. What is important, ultimately, is that the Rules must exist and be enforced, and that they are not keyed in to specific religions or are allowed to slip under the control of any Religionists or Moral Guardians except for the Proprietists.
In summary, nearly all of us feel that there is a God, and that our God is both loving and just. We are weary of the blasphemy against both our God and humankind, which for many centuries has been perpetrated by persons claiming to be acting on His authority. We are weary also of being mind-controlled and having our natural freedoms unfairly curtailed.
However, as human beings possess free will and may do anything they wish to do as long as other people allow it, it is imperative that the work we believe God Himself would do, were He on earth to order it, must be undertaken by ourselves alone – a realization eloquently and memorably invigorated by American President John Kennedy during his Inaugural Address—
“While on earth, God’s works must truly be our own.”
Let’s do them!
............................................................................................................................
ESSAY TWO: A philosophical essay about the origins of thought and the universe...
Common Language
And the Universe of Immaterial Things:
A speculative concept of the way things are and how they came to be
(written to inspire thought in persons equipped to examine the explanations presented)
by James Aaron Parmelee
That which is known is called knowledge, and so that which is unknown is not knowledge. Knowledge, which is born of thought, is expandable without limits, and scientific and mathematical principles (unrefined) increase accordingly, upon a mind’s ability to conceptualize them.
Thought may be defined as consciousness and sensation (or a record of previous consciousness and sensation). Nothing immaterial exists except thought, or relationships such as spatial or temporal distances, which, as we shall see, are not only discoveries of thought but also the major components of all thought when viewed potentially—and thought must exist within a language, whether communicable or systemic.
Art—which may be defined as individual expression, or freedom of movement between and among the different branches of thought (generally not by apparent steps of logic)—is created by one mind’s thoughts to provide pleasure for itself and others, and permeates all other branches of thought inextricably.
Science, philosophy and mathematics therefore do not, and cannot, exist independently of art, or of one another. Indeed science, philosophy, art and mathematics are all integrated parts of the greater whole which is thought; and science, philosophy and art itself are all applied branches of integrated mathematical systems, whether consciously or strictly constructed or not.
Language, thus, is both a form of art and an integration of mathematical systems structurally allowing and facilitating the creative and artistic expressions that lead to mental explorations in science, philosophy and art itself—indeed also the expansion, in terms of knowledge, of the very mathematical principles and laws which incorporate it.
Mathematics and art thus must be regarded as the generational bases of thought, and of all things immaterial; but it is communicable language which is the stage on which they are erected, and knowledge shall expand slowly or rapidly to the extent that mathematical and scientific discoveries can be formulated in a common language, to inspire sensation and artistic appreciation in external minds.
The Space-Time Continuum of the Immaterial Universe:
The ‘Deity’ of Religion
(A languistic definition based on the above)
Contrary to current scientific belief, each ‘universe’ that exists, whether known or unknown, is composed of not one, but two, dual ‘universes’: the one material, or physical, and the other immaterial, or mental. There also exists in both the material and the immaterial universes not one, but two, continuua: the space-time continuum and the matter-energy continuum, which orbit one another elliptically; and these travel unimpeded between, to and from both universes, functioning immaterially in the immaterial universe, and materially (or in part materially) in the material universe, while being permanently resident in neither. Thus it is that by any instance of will (or thought imposition) emanating from the time-space continuum of the immaterial universe into the material universe (see below), the matter-energy continuum of the material universe is caused to collide with the space-time continuum of the immaterial universe, causing an integration of thought with matter (in other words, a living object), as well as other phenomenal changes.
In examining these phenomena, emphasis will first be given to events within the material universe in which we, as mortal physical beings, daily operate, and only secondly to events within the immaterial universe, from which we as thinking beings ultimately derive our capacity to think.
Mass (a physical object’s relative attractiveness to other objects) and energy within either universe are interchangeable, and are opposite manifestations of the same entity, which is matter (or one might say ‘pre-matter’ within the immaterial universe).
Likewise, space and time are interchangeable, and are opposite manifestations of the same entity, which is thought (or potential thought), as manifested independently of living matter, or animate objects.
Therefore, all that exists is either matter or thought (in whatever form), but these are not interchangeable. Thought is immaterial (without physical dimension); thus matter within the material universe (possessing physical dimension) is material. Embodied thought (as contrasted to the previous, or historic, thought of the immaterial universe) is consciousness, whereas inanimate matter is not, and does not possess any degree of, consciousness. Embodied thought, however, cannot by definition exist apart from matter, though matter may exist apart from thought. Indeed, matter, the embodiment of mass, and energy, the opposite manifestation of mass, are the necessary constituents of any material object; and embodied thought requires life, which occurs by the fusion of thought with matter.
A living object itself, however, cannot exist without a brain or brain-equivalent to enable thought, or the equivalent of thought. Thus, the fusion of matter and thought, or form of thought, must produce a living object (or body) with a brain, or other mechanism, resident to enable thought and control the body’s functions (as well as the functions of the brain or brain-equivalent itself). Such a fusion can only occur when mass and energy within the material universe cease to be capable of alternating form, and this capability can only cease when the continuum on which both mass and energy ride (the matter-energy continuum) collides with the space-time continuum of the immaterial universe of thought: fusing within the material universe thought with matter, time with mass, and space with energy.
The living object and the brain which controls it, however, exists but for a finite duration, as do the fusions of time with mass and space with energy, as these fusions may be regarded as aberrations of ‘normal’ continuum activity. Thus because the creation of a living object species occurs but seldom (by human reckoning), and the brain-regulated living object can exist as a thinking embodiment only briefly, the living object so created is thought-directed (both before its creation, in the immaterial universe, and afterwards, in the material universe) to propagate itself in order to preclude the extinction of its species.Therefore, just as matter and energy and space and time function as opposites of one another while yet jointly comprising the unities mass and thought, respectively, so also brain-regulated living objects capable of embodied thought are created in dual forms which are opposite, namely male and female (or an amalgam of the two), in order that the species of which they are one may perpetuate itself.
As for the immaterial universe, there came a point of time which one might call “the beginning of embodied thought in the immaterial universe”, when a fusion parallel to the one described with regard to the material universe took place, wherein the matter-energy continuum collided with the space-time continuum, such that the ‘pre-matter’ of that universe (consisting of an immaterial substance which nonetheless was fully represented by both mass and energy and also possessed a definitive shape, or outline of shape) fused with potential thought to produce a single thinking entity, the ‘brain’ of which was pre-programmed to live eternally. This thinking Entity, thus, can be considered to be ‘God’. God, however, did not suddenly begin existence by means of such a fusion, but had already existed, though in a potential state of thought only, and without a body of any sort, physical or otherwise.
Like time and space (considered separately), both mass and disembodied thought are constants, relatively speaking, and thought in collective form remains in the immaterial universe both disembodied and operative: itself receiving, collecting, organizing, assimilating and directing a virtually inestimable inflow of ‘live’ thoughts, including knowledge bases, desires, prayers, complaints, opinions and memories, from all capable living objects. Thus it is that the space-time continuum, taken as an entity (and carrying thought, or will, from the immaterial universe into the material universe), may be regarded as the Deity unifying and controlling all things through the power of projected thought: the matter-energy continuum of the material universe by physical laws (i.e., the predictability circumstantially controlling and operative over all actions and reactions), and everything else by the assimilated will of all thoughts synthesized as one.
It thus seems clear that in order to fathom and expand upon mankind’s general knowledge regarding the origins of thought (as well as the origins of ‘God’ and all things material and immaterial), thinking beings must utilize language and scientific study—and within these fully make use of the interrelatedness of art and mathematics—the very elements of which thought is—and must by definition be, composed.
I trust that better qualified ‘thinkers’ than myself can expand upon these matters for the good of all on earth.
............................................................................................................................
AN ACCEPTED CONCEPT INHERENTLY FALLACIOUS:
'Scientific', or 'Physical', Law.
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' or 'physical law'! Indeed, there cannot be any 'law' which does not apply in all possible circumstances, and all such 'laws' are dependent for their existence upon the juxtaposition of things. Thus, as we all know, there is no Law of Gravity in play in a juxtaposition wherein the physical objects are all weightless ('weightlessness' itself being, by definition, another fallacious concept). And in a circumstance wherein there are no physical objects at all (if that is possible), neither this nor any other 'law' would or could exist. Thus to answer the ancient riddle of whether a falling tree would make a noise if there were no one to hear it: There would, undoubtedly, be sound waves—but, without ears, not a semblance of sound!
............................................................................................................................
ESSAY THREE: Buddhism versus my beliefs...
Buddhism Versus my Beliefs,
And What I Have Learned from the Comparison
by James Aaron Parmelee
What I must reject or have doubts about.
1. A faulty beginning premise: That the ultimate goal of existence is to cease to be, in order to escape from suffering.
It is hardly surprising that in his self-depriving search for ‘Eternal Truths’, Prince Siddhattha Gotama, later known as the Lord Buddha, would seek to escape from such sufferings, while also assuming that other persons likewise would seek non-existence if they could. This, we daresay, was an erroneous assumption on the Buddha’s part, as it was the only path towards ‘happiness’ that he could conceive of, whereas there can be no happiness at all in one who has ceased to be. (One wonders if mandatory and universal birth control might not have achieved the same end, therein curtailing the beginning of life [and thus ‘suffering’], at least for those who might otherwise have come into existence!)
2. That all life is suffering.
Life does indeed contain, and will predictably also cause, suffering (sometimes an enormous amount of it, and often quite disproportionate to its apparent causes), but it also consists, generally, of great pleasure, enthusiasm, hope, dreams, satisfaction and, at times, sheer joy. Life, indeed, should be regarded as a remarkable ‘gift’ and opportunity, a chance to achieve the very limits of what can be done in the creation of good things, both for oneself and others during this life, but also for the generations that will follow.
3. That the soul does not exist, and that it is the belief in a ‘soul’ which creates ego: ego, in turn, being the source of ambition, rivalry, conflict and the need to control, while destroying inner peace and outer harmony; and that belief in the soul is thus at the root of all human suffering.
The soul is indeed manifested by all of the above, but is ultimately an indispensable ‘arm’ of God Himself, to enable man to improve his situation, and that of others, both now and in the generations to come. The soul is that which defines the individual, and is possessed by all living beings as a conduit unto God. Indeed, without ambition and rivalry, and the very processes that compromise both inner peace and outer harmony, no progress whatever could be made by man to achieve the goodness God demands of him in exchange for his ‘Gift’ of life.
4. That there are rebirths, but no reincarnations, because there is no soul.
There are rebirths of the soul in new incarnations. To believe otherwise is to doubt the existence of Karma, and/or make karma meaningless.
5. The teaching or implication that there is no God.
God is a synthesis of all things, and God and all things are inter-dependent. Thus God in wholeness indeed possesses great powers, greater than have ever been manifested.
6. God does not answer prayers.
God does not interfere in the free will of men, but may exert through His Angels (as a result of prayer) a positive impulse for good, on persons who hold the destiny of others in their hands.
7. The implication that truth, or ‘enlightenment’ may only be obtained through Buddhist-style meditation.
There are many effective means of meditation, and Truth can only be approached, not acquired through any such method. ‘Enlightenment’ is an illusion caused by physiological changes occurring in the body during deep meditation and is not a reality, though a level of ‘enlightenment’ may indeed be approached (for later study) through this method.
8. Humans may be reborn from animals or other former beings.
There seems to be no evidence for this, though it may be true.
9. All humans are reborn until they become ‘Buddhas’.
This seems to be logically impossible. Many persons are in their first births, and not all deaths result in new lives, as more people are born than have died. Also, by logic, it seems unlikely that the difference could be made up by rebirths from animals, as animals so greatly outnumber people! This premise, therefore, appears to be badly flawed—without a great deal more evidence to support it.
10. The precept not to ‘cause the death of any living being’.
To follow this precept is to refuse to live, because man in order to survive must consume either meat or plants (both of which can be shown to be ‘living beings’ capable of suffering), or else cause suffering to plants or animals by robbing them of fruits and eggs. Most importantly, to leave such ‘killings’ to others does not in any way exonerate the end consumers of this ‘crime’!
What I agree with.
1. The existence of karma (or ‘kamma’), both in this life and as a result of previous lives.
I believe people, or at least some people, or some people some of the time, are reborn, and that the good or bad deeds of their previous lives will impact on their present lives. I believe, also, that good and bad deeds may impact on the quality of one’s present life also, though this is a tendency, rather than a law. I also believe that these rebirths are only possible if the soul follows, as otherwise there is the rebirth of precisely what? Only energy waves? I don’t think so!
2. God did not create our universe or ourselves.
God, I believe, is a synthesis of all that is, and is the Center of all things, and that He knows all things that are knowable. However, He did not directly create anything or anyone that exists. Rather, He makes existence possible, and provides the source of both knowledge and power to accomplish anything which is physically possible.
3. There are many universes.
There is no reason to doubt this. From these, there are many rebirth possibilities for life forms other than humans.
4. Do not have blind faith in any teachers, traditions, scriptures or religious teachings.
I emphatically agree. I believe that ‘Truth’ must be discovered by oneself, not solely through other sources—including the Buddhist teachings, to be sure!
What I feel I have learned, or projected, from this comparison study.
Our lives are affected by Karma, both in this life and from previous lives. We may or may not be reincarnated, or have been reincarnated. There is a ‘Heaven’ for both people and other beings. Reincarnation may, or may not, be instantaneous from the moment of death. It may not occur at all. In addition to ‘Heaven’, there may be both a ‘Hell’ on earth (through Karma) and a ‘Hell’ after death, when one’s karma brings forth both punishment and instruction. Animals, like people, are given spirits to animate them after death, and they also may be reincarnated, whether as people or not being unproven. The spirits of dead persons may exist both as residents of heaven and in new incarnations. Thus, the spirits of loved ones will always be ready to greet the souls of newly-dead persons. The all-encompassing power of God will generate for souls a wonderful feeling of peace and well-being while in Heaven, and upon being returned to earth, if that occurs, will inhabit better persons than they previously did.
There remains, of course, much more to learn!
Back to Top
............................................................................................................................
ESSAY FOUR: WHY? (On the nature of Man and the current universe)
…the importance of considering “Why?” in all analysis
by James Aaron Parmelee
INTRODUCTION. The failure to seriously explore causality: A seemingly faulty approach to discovery about the nature of Man and the universe
The reader of this work need scarcely be reminded (however desirable that may turn out to be) that in essays and treatises such as this one regarding the nature of things, scientists, philosophers and knowledgeable reporters traditionally appear to seek answers mainly only to questions beginning with WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and HOW, and sometimes WHO, for example — but rarely WHY.
For the purpose of helping to ‘broaden the mental horizons’ of such great thinkers, we shall henceforth take it upon ourselves to proceed in contravention of their seemingly inherent prejudice against exploring causality (or the WHY of things), in an admittedly humble though entirely sincere attempt to examine WHY such an unfortunate prejudice has come to exist in their methodologies and procedures in the first place.
In actual fact, there appear to be quite a number of reasons for this neglect of causal consideration, the foremost one being, I daresay, because WHY questions tend often enough to be posed more for the purpose of communicating a complaint than for seeking answers! Thus, one might say, “WHY, O Lord, does this have to happen to me?”; “WHY is my luck so bad?”; “WHY on earth won’t these children behave?” Clearly, there is no answer to any of these seeming questions.
Another reason that WHY questions are often not taken seriously by many thinkers is that the ‘answers’ to those questions are already “known” and “accepted” by way of religion, superstition or other influences by huge numbers of people — though these ‘answers’ may generally be entirely lacking in proof or evidence (or diligence in seeking) but are nonetheless taken on “faith” as the “truth”. Thus, such answers may be given as “It’s God’s will”; or “God will help us in our hour of need”; or “Only God can know these things”; or “We will never know. For some things there is just no answer.”
To people within this mindset, it appears foolish to even consider the WHY of matters, when that is already clearly ‘known to be unknowable’ by us mere mortals. (And one can only hope that scientists and philosophers do not themselves fall victim to such a debilitating mindset, much to the detriment of their important research and discoveries — or if they have, that they might soon extricate themselves, for the betterment of everyone!)
Indeed there may well not be an answer to every legitimate WHY question one might pose. Or, to the contrary, there may be an answer yet waiting to be discovered. Certainly, one will never know unless one diligently seeks and considers all possibilities that might occur to a fertile mind.
To illustrate, it appears certain that scientists doing their research do not under most circumstances consider WHY questions, except subliminally, perhaps. Thus I daresay that when Jonas Salk created his polio vaccine, he was wondering WHAT, WHEN, WHERE or HOW, no doubt, regarding what would happen if he added B to A under defined conditions and then put that in a D solution and increased the temperature, for example.
Little conscious thought was given, I surmise, to what the actual CAUSE leading to the effect of polio infection was (which might have been useful to him in his considerations, and, more importantly, have prevented or helped to mitigate later on the numerous cases of death and paralysis that occurred in children directly as a consequence of their being injected with an inadequately tested and risky vaccine — which, once it had finally been perfected, nonetheless became a boon to everyone, child and adult, across the world).
In the end, therefore, one must say that Salk’s creation of the polio vaccine may well have been more of a ‘lucky accident’ than the result of holistic research — except in the sense that, as people say, “The harder one works, the luckier one gets” — if one disregards the victims of incomplete effort, that is!
The same could be said, no doubt, regarding the discovery of electricity or radiation and the inventions of the light bulb, the radio, automobiles, the airplane and the computer, not to mention the mental cogitations of the incredibly superior minds which led us to the enlightenments provided by the Law of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, and even the Theory of Relativity — fruits of genius all, though brought forth with probably less conscious consideration on the part of their creators or discoverers than there should have been of the ultimate CAUSALITIES that control or regulate man and the universe — this being less true, though not altogether untrue, we posit, even of Albert Einstein’s and Isaac Newton’s invaluable contributions, for example, than those of the majority of other noted thinkers and inventors.
Finally, this writer hopes that by our going beyond the usual questions great thinkers ask, to query the WHY about people and things and our speculative answers to the questions raised (as shown below), we will have made an important contribution to science and philosophy — not, would we dare to imagine, by virtue of our ‘answers’ to these questions, but rather by illustrating WHAT ought to be considered by minds greater or better educated than our own, and HOW the thoughts of those minds should be directed, at least in part, by the consideration of causality (or WHY) — to assist us all to achieve a better understanding of our own unique incarnations, as well as the nature of the universe we reside in, at least for the time being.
In the end, this writer will be more than pleased if to some small extent the result of his work might be that our world’s great scientists and philosophers begin to focus less outwardly on tangible things and more inwardly on causality — especially as concerns the now nearly unexplored workings and potential of our human condition, both mental and spiritual — and by making these discoveries tangible also, by facilitating detailed analysis, even in mathematical terms.
I. ‘WHY’ questions about human behavior that beg to be researched and answered
A. WHY are some persons kind, helpful and self-sacrificing in serving other people’s needs, often even to the point of obsession, while others seem bent on torturing and/or destroying their fellow men and women, seemingly without any semblance of shame or remorse?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: Rather than pigeon-holing people into arbitrary classes of ‘good ‘and ‘evil’, it would be more fitting, I believe, to make note of what both ‘classes’ have in common, namely a desire to seek a purpose for their own existence. Thus while some persons seek fulfillment by helping others, still other persons may find it in passing judgment on people they perceive as being less ‘righteous’ than they should be in the context of their own beliefs or upbringing — thus feeling fully justified in levying the severest of punishments on the other group — all done, one must note, in the belief that they are doing ‘good’ and fulfilling their ‘purpose’ in life!
Thus it is that the two groups are actually in their potential more similar than different, the ‘evil’ class bent on doing good as they see it, and the ‘good’ class clearly capable of the most horrific violence in order to eradicate the ‘evil’ class and therein realize their own ‘purpose’ in life. Indeed, there appears actually to be very little of ‘free will’ in the case of either class, both behaving, in the context of their upbringing, with but a varnish of ‘civilization’ in exactly the same way that their animal ancestors would have conducted themselves.
It is thus the task of social philosophers, and to no small extent, scientists, to not only increase their understanding of human behavior as it actually exists, but also in a scientific manner to help instill a greater level of tolerance and empathy in even the youngest of children, just as it also must be the duty of parents and guardians to ensure that their children are trained in tolerance and the abhorrence of violence. No easy task for anyone, certainly, but it must be done, else violence will surely one day encompass the whole of earth, and even our greatest thinkers may fall prey to the misguided ‘righteousness’ of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ people!
B. In the same manner as with the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ classes described in A. above, WHY do some people behave cruelly towards other people or animals, and are we all capable of behaving in this same way?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: There are a number of reasons, only some of which are listed below, for why people may act with cruelty, even as we have seen in recent times the slaughter by governments and certain ‘religious leaders’ of their own or other nations’ innocent men, women and children, up to and including the most horrible torture, maiming and disfigurement of ordinary people without regard for sex, race, religion or age. WHY does this occur? It is, in part:
Because of a perceived threat, slight or insult by another individual or group of individuals toward one’s own country, race or group;
Because of a perceived occupation of space believed to be the sole province of one’s own self, group or government;
Because of intolerance of the explicit or tacit refusal by any person or group outside of one’s own group to conform to one’s own convictions or religious beliefs;
Because of vengeance, and the desire to hurt perceived ‘offenders’ in the most personal and harmful of ways;
Because of the submersion of one’s own self, and one’s own individuality, in the collective personality of the single-minded ‘mob’ of which one is a member;
Because of the perceived ‘need’ to punish and/or exterminate persons or groups that demonstrate against, or are not in agreement with, one’s own organization;
Because of the perverse impulse to demonstrate superiority and power by harming others weaker than oneself;
Because of the ‘thrill’ of fighting (and competing), and the will and determination to win on behalf of one’s own group, in any context;
Because of the craving to achieve admiration, or even adulation, for one’s own perceived bravery, especially in difficult circumstances;
Because of the feeling of being ‘overwhelmed’ by large numbers of persons different from ourselves; and, finally,
Simply because of a desire to seek ‘amusement’, whether in the killing and torture of people or harmless animals.
Genetically and/or by evolution, we are indeed all, without exception, as capable of cruelty and murder as our animal ancestors, given the ‘right’ combination of circumstances. Thus, we often hear of the ‘most vicious of killers’ described by their families, friends and neighbors as being gentle and kind and ‘utterly incapable’ of such behavior as that being alleged.
Scientists, therefore, must seek out the WHY behind the WHY discussed here, to see what might be done in terms of human behavioral modification without at once stifling individuality. No mean task, but one that must be addressed if mankind is to continue to survive on earth!
C. WHY do many people rely on their religion as both a source of comfort and security, and as a justification for the persecution of non-believers?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: As we have discussed above, people seek meaning for their lives, while understanding, not only through their religious faith, but also these days through better scientific knowledge, that since neither matter nor energy, however inter-convertible, can be destroyed, there must surely be a life after death! This belief does indeed afford them comfort and security, while at the same time causing them to be defensive about the God they were brought up, or have chosen on their own, to believe in, to the extent that they wholly believe it is their sacred duty to defend their religious beliefs, and their ‘God’, unto death, against all who might assail against them.
We must leave it to the discretion of educated and fully-informed scientists and moral philosophers as to what to do to assist these persons, and certainly the people they may be inclined to persecute.
D. WHY do most people disregard the certainty of impending death in order to accomplish something they hope might be ‘lasting’ for their fellow man?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: It is almost instinctual for many, and perhaps most, people, whether they are religious or not, to want to ‘leave the world a better place’ than when they entered it; and however elderly they may have become, they recognize that through their experience they still have something to ‘pass on’ to those they leave behind. Furthermore, as there appears to be ‘no sense’ in dwelling on one’s impending death, most people do ‘go on’ with their lives just as though they would be on earth forever! It is the one means they have of ‘living on’, at least while on earth.
Most elderly people have indeed become ‘wise’ in some ways, or at the very least, in one way, and that wisdom would be given us by them freely for our asking, much to the benefit of all. What a shame it would be if our scientists and social philosophers did not find a way to ‘harvest’ this wisdom and integrate that with what they already know or believe!
II. ‘WHY’ questions about the nature of our current universe
A. WHY do some persons who have clinically ‘died’ have after-death or near-death experiences before they are brought back to life, while others apparently do not?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: Perhaps all remember, but have selectively forgotten, or perhaps such experiences are unique to heart attack victims only, for example. Beyond this, however, we need to listen in some scientific manner to what those who have ‘gone’ and returned have to say, and seek ways to learn more about not only what brings the experiences on, but also what the stories of such ‘travelers’ have in common — thus giving us a manifest glimpse, perhaps, of the ‘afterlife’, if indeed one exists.
B. WHY do some people seem able to ‘float above’ their operating table while under anesthesia, and even look down at their own bodies while observing the actions and listening in on the conversations of the doctors and nurses conducting their surgery — as demonstrated by their own reports to these astonished professionals later on? Likewise, WHY under hypnosis are some people able to speak in languages they have not learned (at least in this life), and WHY are certain ‘retarded’ children able to perform astounding feats with numbers or play perfect classical music without any prior training at all, or even the ability to speak or read fluently?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: These phenomena are well documented and appear to challenge doubts about life beyond death — and indeed much more. Certainly, in the first case, it appears at the very least to document a legitimate ‘out of body’ experience. The latter two cases seemingly point towards the possibility of reincarnation and/or the conclusion that there must exist a ‘repository’ of human accomplishments somewhere in our universe — providing skills, as in the case of a regarded child, to persons perhaps too underdeveloped intellectually to shun as being ‘impossible’ of accomplishment.
In any case, though it may be difficult, or even nearly impossible, for scientists to collect, study and replicate reliable samples of the above phenomena, that surely must in some manner be done — else a whole body of data that concerns us all must irrevocably go to waste!
C. WHY is it necessary, given our short life spans, to go faster than the speed of light in order to participate in distant space travel, thus making such a feat ostensibly impossible? Seriously, just as there have been numerous instances reported of apparent out-of-body experiences, WHY, as one example, cannot human beings somehow just travel through space at ‘the speed of thought’ (albeit bodiless, to be sure), thereby making travel at the speed of light unnecessary for the purpose of garnering knowledge — for so long, at least, as man remains mortal?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: It appears to thinking minds that there surely must be a way to achieve things that now appear impossible. For example, a hundred years or so ago the idea or our flying farther and faster than a bird, or being able to travel faster on land than with a horse, or of being able to hold a conversation with someone all the way on the other side of the world, or even sending a man up to walk on the surface of Earth’s moon, would have been seen as not only impossible, but also ridiculous even to contemplate!
Indeed, even now it may really be impossible, after all, for mortal man to travel across the universe except by somehow exceeding the speed of light, but then all possibilities (or impossibilities) must be considered in order for us to at the very least confirm our travel limitations. In the end, it may be easier for us to become ‘less mortal’, instead, in order to make such a trek possible, if it is at all!
This is still another task awaiting the genius of scientists and other thinkers.
D. WHY can we not exist in multiple dimensions, instead of being limited to just one?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: Perhaps we do already, or will. It would be interesting in any case, we believe, to all scientists and philosophers to read about the alleged after-death scientific research on this subject by the renowned Cambridge University professor, Dr. Frederick Myers, as shown in the website linked to here.
E. WHY do poltergeists exist, or exist only, as it appears, in certain areas or specific circumstances? What are they, and what distinguishes the areas or circumstances in which they appear from other areas or circumstances?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: This may be an example of the untapped powers of the human mind gone out of control, allegedly from the brains of unhappy older children.
In any case, this undeniable phenomenon, though not frequent in occurrence, should be taken by all scientists as at the very least an urgent ‘wake-up call’ to explore beyond just the external unknown of our universe, but also the inner unknown of our most precious selves — the human mind!
F. WHY do scientists choose to disregard the need to explore whether the human ‘soul’ is part of, or separate from, the human mind, or if it even exists at all?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: Scientists are understandably reluctant to venture into areas they cannot ‘control’ by means of samples, control groups, mathematical formulae and experimentation, added to which they may well feel intimidated, as they have been in the past, by religious ‘contradictions’ or prejudices. For all of these reasons, and others, they may feel inadequately prepared to explore such an area.
Nonetheless, scientists and others must seek a way to explore the concept of the human ‘soul’, particularly in view of the recent verified occurrence of a man being pronounced medically ‘brain dead’ and placed in the morgue — upon which, while being prepared for an autopsy, he moved his big toe (alerting observers that he must be, in fact, still alive), then ‘woke up’ and spoke with total fluency about what he had heard and understood from the people around him, including their intentions to subject him to the autopsy!
G. WHY must there be a dichotomy in the search for what one might regard as universal ‘truths’, wherein one must choose between the faith of religion over the greater ‘certainties’ of science, or vice versa? WHY can there not be a merging of the best of both, without rejecting the one or the other out of hand?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: People by habit prefer to make choices between two options. However, such an attitude must surely be ‘unbecoming’ of a scientist — particularly these days when scientific discoveries and analyses are generally accepted and respected by the public. The greater reason for such a dichotomy must therefore be, as in other instances reported above, the ‘inadequacy’ scientists may feel in exploring areas beyond their current body of training and empirical experience.
H. WHY do scientists spurn studies of the paranormal just because there are no known mathematical formulae to describe their own or others’ observations?
AUTHOR RESPONSE: Scientists are comfortable with their own knowledge base and formulae, and are understandably afraid to be fooled by charlatans, of whom there are many, unfortunately, in the area of so-called ‘paranormal activity’. It is my position, therefore, that if scientists can explore all of the areas listed above, they will have accomplished their study of the paranormal fully thereby, without having to make of it a separate area of study.
SUMMARY: If perhaps partly as a result of this writing scientists and other great thinkers will do just one thing better — namely focus their studies more sharply on causality, the WHY of things, and therein proceed beyond their ‘comfort zones’ to explore matters they have not been trained or had any experience in considering, then this simple work will have succeeded beyond its author’s wildest expectations. May it be so!
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................